Jovon R. Richardson v. Joshua M. Richardson
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 454
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Wife (Jovon R. Richardson) and Husband (Joshua M. Richardson) married in 2008; they have a son, W.R. (Husband acknowledged paternity). Wife has a daughter L.O. (biological father: Robert Osborne), for whom paternity/custody was established in 2006 in a separate paternity action.
- During the marriage Husband acted as a de facto father to L.O., providing long‑term financial, emotional, physical, and educational support; L.O. refers to Husband as “dad.”
- Husband filed for dissolution in 2013; a May 2013 preliminary order granted Husband parenting time with W.R. and found it in L.O.’s best interests to spend time with Husband concurrent with W.R. so the children could remain together.
- Husband later filed contempt charges alleging Wife willfully interfered with his parenting time with W.R. and visitation with L.O.; Wife admitted to removing the children during Husband’s scheduled time but offered various excuses.
- Final decree (Sept. 2014) awarded Husband sole legal and physical custody of W.R., granted Wife parenting time, ordered Husband visitation with L.O. on weekends when W.R. is with Husband, and found Wife in contempt for willful interference.
Issues
| Issue | Richardson's Argument | Husband's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dissolution court had authority to grant Husband visitation with L.O. (a child from Wife’s prior relationship) | The paternity court already adjudicated custody/parenting time for L.O., so the dissolution court lacked authority and its order conflicts with the paternity judgment | Dissolution court may grant visitation to a stepparent as between the divorcing spouses; the paternity order did not address Husband vs. Wife rights and thus no conflict exists | Court held dissolution court had authority to grant stepparent visitation; no conflict with prior paternity order |
| Whether visitation with Husband is in L.O.’s best interests | Wife argued Husband failed to show visitation was in L.O.’s best interests | Husband showed longstanding custodial/parental relationship with L.O., and visitation keeps siblings together (L.O. and W.R.) | Court found evidence supported best‑interest finding and affirmed visitation order |
| Whether Wife’s actions constituted willful contempt for interfering with parenting time | Wife claimed insufficient evidence and offered excuses for removing children during Husband’s time | Husband showed Wife removed children without consent on specified weekends in violation of preliminary order | Court affirmed contempt finding; trial court credited Husband and found Wife’s violations willful |
| Whether trial judge was biased and whether court could order custody not requested by parties | Wife claimed bias based on judge’s demeanor and rulings; also argued custody award (Husband sole custody of W.R.) was not requested by either party | Judge asserted impartiality; court may fashion custody arrangements based on child’s best interests even if not proposed by parties | Court found no basis to overturn for bias; judge’s conduct was within bounds; custody arrangement affirmed as within court’s discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Lindquist v. Lindquist, 999 N.E.2d 907 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (best‑interest standard and abuse‑of‑discretion review for custody/visitation)
- In re I.E., 997 N.E.2d 358 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (recognizing stepparent standing to seek visitation)
- Worrell v. Elkhart Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 704 N.E.2d 1027 (Ind. 1998) (supreme court: stepparent may be granted visitation upon showing custodial/parental relationship and best interests)
- Francis v. Francis, 654 N.E.2d 4 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (dissolution court authority to grant/modify stepparent visitation)
- Caban v. Healey, 634 N.E.2d 540 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (dissolution court may grant visitation to stepparent though custody may be limited)
- A.C. v. N.J., 1 N.E.3d 685 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (children’s interest in maintaining parental figures can outweigh natural parent’s direction)
- In re Marriage of Dall, 681 N.E.2d 718 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (dissolution court cannot adjudicate rights of nonparties in separate proceedings)
- Akiwumi v. Akiwumi, 23 N.E.3d 734 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (standard of review and burden in contempt proceedings)
- Mitchell v. Mitchell, 785 N.E.2d 1194 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (contempt review standard)
- Timberlake v. State, 690 N.E.2d 243 (Ind. 1997) (bench‑trial latitude for judges to question witnesses while maintaining impartiality)
- In re K.I., 903 N.E.2d 453 (Ind. 2009) (statutory grandparent visitation requires explicit findings; court declined to extend those presumptions to stepparents)
- Schaffer v. Schaffer, 884 N.E.2d 423 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (discusses, in dicta, parental presumptions for third‑party visitation)
- In re Adoption of I.K.E.W., 724 N.E.2d 245 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (constitutional rights are personal; one party cannot assert another’s due‑process claim)
- Kirkland v. State, 232 N.E.2d 365 (Ind. 1968) (standing and personal nature of constitutional claims)
- Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614 (U.S. 1991) (limitations on asserting others’ rights)
- Flowers v. State, 738 N.E.2d 1051 (Ind. 2000) (need to show judge’s conduct crossed impartiality barrier to prove bias)